JUDGMENT - DHANUKA D.R., J.:—By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the impugned Regulation known as “Education Regulations 1991” framed by the Pharmacy Council of India are unconstitutional and ineffective in law is insofar as the said regulations prescribe minimum qualification for diploma course in pharmacy. The petitioners have sought various consequential reliefs as set out in the prayer clauses of the petition. 2. The petitioners are students. The petitioners have passed 10th Standard Examination held by Maharashtra Secondary School Examination Board in June 1994. The petitioners have filed this petition through their guardian as set out in the cause title of the petition. The impugned regulations prescribe passing of Intermediate Science Examination as the minimum qualification for admission to the diploma course in pharmacy. If the impugned regulations are valid, the petitioners are not entitled to seek admission to the Diploma Course in pharmacy. 3. Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 empowers the Central Council to make Regulation Order called the “Education Regulations” subject to the approval of the Central Government as more particularly set out therein. Section 10(1) and section 10(2) of the said Act read as under :— “10(1). Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Council may, subject to the approval of the Central Government, make regulations, to be called the Education Regulations prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist.” “(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Education Regulations may prescribe— (a) the nature and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken before admission to an examination; (b) the equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study; (c) the subjects of examination and the standards therein to be attained; (d) any other conditions of admission to examination.” 4. The impugned Regulations, copies whereof are Exhibit 'A” to the petition pertains to “Diploma Course in Pharmacy”. The said Regulations were framed by the Central Council and were duly approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Health vide letter No. V 13016/1/89-PWS dated 2nd August, 1991 and were duly notified by the Pharmacy Council of India. The impugned Regulations, copies whereof are Exhibit 'A” to the petition pertains to “Diploma Course in Pharmacy”. The said Regulations were framed by the Central Council and were duly approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Health vide letter No. V 13016/1/89-PWS dated 2nd August, 1991 and were duly notified by the Pharmacy Council of India. Regulation 5 of the said Regulations deals with the subject-matter of Minimum Qualification for admission to Diploma Course in Pharmacy Part-I. The said Regulation prescribes that the applicant for admission must have passed intermediate examination in Science and must also fulfil various other prescribed conditions before the applicant can seek admission to the said course. It appears that prior to coming into force of the impugned Regulation, a student who had passed S.S.C. Examination could also seek admission to the diploma course in Pharmacy. By the impugned Regulation, the minimum qualification for admission to the said course has been changed from the requirement of the applicant student having passed S.S.C. Examination to the student having passed intermediate examination in science as aforesaid Regulation 5 of the Education Regulation, 1991 is hereinafter referred to as “the impugned regulation.” 5. The impugned regulation was challenged by some of the students before the Aurangabad Bench of our High Court in Writ Petition No. 2133 of 1993 filed by Shaikh Zakir Kadar and Rahulkumar Bansilal Lodha. By their judgment dated 23rd September, 1993, V.V. Kamat and S.G. Mutalik, JJ., directed that the impugned Regulation herein shall apply for the academic year 1994-95 and not for the academic year 1993-1994 on the ground that the said Regulations were notified rather late. The Division Bench observed in its judgment in the said case that “the publication of the Rules at the brink of the academic year violated the principle of prospectivity”. It is not known as to whether the impugned regulation was challenged as ultra vires and in the above-referred writ petition. No reference to such a plea is to be found ill judgment of the Court. The plea as to vires of the said regulation is examined on merits. 6. In this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions. No reference to such a plea is to be found ill judgment of the Court. The plea as to vires of the said regulation is examined on merits. 6. In this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions. The learned Counsel has submitted that the impugned Regulation i.e. Regulation No. 5 forming part of Chapter II of Education Regulations 1991 is beyond the Regulation making power conferred on the prescribed authority under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The learned counsel submits that the pharmacy council is authorised to frame the necessary Regulation for the purpose of prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification of a Pharmacist. The learned Counsel submits that the Central Council has no jurisdiction to frame the impugned Regulation and prescribe the minimum qualification for admission to the courts. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission. The Regulation making power shall have to be construed widely having regard to the object of the Act. This Court is required to consider as to whether there is a reasonable nexus between the prescription of minimum qualification for admission to the course and the prescription of minimum standards for the course. In our opinion, minimum qualification for admission is directly interlinked with and intertwined with the minimum standards required to be observed for concerning the Diploma Course. In our opinion there is a clear nexus between the content of the impugned Regulation and the subjects in respect whereof the Statutory Regulations can be framed as set out in section 10. In our opinion the impugned Regulation clearly falls within the scope and ambit of section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. If the students do not possess proper qualifications at the stage of entry to the course, the quality of performance of students for the relevant course is bound to suffer. The subject-matter of the impugned regulation is not foreign or extraneous to the objects of the Act or the subjects on which the regulation can be framed under section. All ancillary and incidental powers are implicit in the provision. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Regulation is manifestly arbitrary and totally unreasonable. The learned Counsel submits that the same minimum qualification is prescribed for admission to the degree course as well. All ancillary and incidental powers are implicit in the provision. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Regulation is manifestly arbitrary and totally unreasonable. The learned Counsel submits that the same minimum qualification is prescribed for admission to the degree course as well. The petitioners have impugned the said Regulation on the ground that the said Regulation is violative of Guarantee of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners have also impugned the said regulation on the ground that the said Regulation is violative of Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the petitioners' source of livelihood is likely to be affected if the said regulation is held to be applicable and is enforced. It is upto the statutory authorities to decide as to what should be the minimum qualifications for admission to the diploma course herein. The Court can strike down the impugned Regulation as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or is discriminatory. Such is not the case here. It is not for this Court to prescribe the minimum qualification for admission to the said course or sit in appeal over the judgment of the prescribed authority as merits. As far as the challenge to the said Regulation based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is concerned, we are of the opinion that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India has no application at all to the controversy in question. In our opinion we hold that the impugned Regulation is reasonable and is enacted to improve upon the quality of those who enter the profession of pharmacist. The students had sufficient notice of the fact that the impugned Regulation shall be enforced by the authorities for the academic year commencing from academic year 1994-95. 8. By its judgment and Order dated 23rd September, 1993, in Writ Petition No. 2133 of 1993, our High Court directed that the impugned Regulation shall be made effective for the academic year 1994-95. We find no merits whatsoever in the challenge to the vires of the impugned regulation. 9. In the result, the petition fails. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Issue of certified copy is expedited. Petition dismissed. -----